I.

(a) As the lawyer of AMLAC, I would counter that a pending case against the alleged
drug pusher is not required in order for AMLAC to inquire about Tulak’s bank
account.

The Anti-Money Laundering Act does not require that the owner of the deposit
account have a pending case before his account be subject of investigation by the
AMLAC. It is sufficient that there is probable cause as to the activities and
transactions of the owner of the account in relation to his bank account. Covered and
suspicious transactions are subject to AMLAC’s regulation and finding of probable
cause as to the use of the account opens said account to AMLAC’s scrutiny.

Here, the AMLAC has found probable cause to subject the account of Tulak to
investigation because they have found that proceeds of the drug transactions may
have been deposited in those accounts.

Thus, AMLAC may proceed to look into Tulak’s accounts upon finding of probable
cause.

(b) The AMLA can obtain the order of the court authorizing them to make inquiries
from any competent court.

The law provides that the AMLAC must first obtain a court order from any competent
court to authorize them to make inquiries. What the law requires to be obtained from
the Court of Appeals is a Freeze Order to freeze a bank account subject of the
money laundering investigation.

Here, such authority to look into Tulak’s accounts may be obtained from any
competent court, not just the Court of Appeals.

Thus, an application for authority to inquire about Tulak’s accounts can be obtained
from any competent court.

(c) No, Tulak’s dollar deposit account can still be inquired into even without his
written consent.

As a general rule, a foreign deposit account can only be inquired into upon the
written consent of the depositor. However, the Anti Money Laundering Law provided
for an exception—that the bank account be subject of an inquiry under the Anti-
Money Laundering Act.

Here, the AMLAC is conducting the inquiry of the dollar deposit account of Tulak due
to the existence of a probable cause that such account is being used as an
instrument of a crime.

Under the law. the power of the board of directors ceases and the power is then transferred to a conservator who is tasked to maintain or improve the current condition of a bank under distress. A bank under conservatorship can continue conducting its business but only to a limited capacity. . the court should sustain on Daking’s objection because the deposit slip is inadmissible in evidence. (b) The exceptions to the secrecy of bank deposits are: a) those where the written consent of the depositor or owner of the bank account is obtained. De Guia’s act of revoking the contract of security and maintenance services despite it being approved even before the bank entered conservatorship is valid. when a bank is under conservatorship. and b) where the AMLAC and the BSP conduct inquiries into those bank deposits in aid of their investigation. Thus. Jurisprudence also provides that a foreign deposit account can also be subject to garnishment as payment for the damages that the foreign owner-accused owes his rape victim. Yes. Any violation of such secrecy is against public policy. The deposit slip of the dollar account of Daking is still covered under the Bank Secrecy Law as well as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act and any offer of such evidence. such inquiry being made by AMLAC on Tulak’s dollar deposit account is regular in nature. The power of the board of directors to enter into contracts that may prove to be more prejudicial than beneficial to the distressed bank should be curtailed. De Guia had the power to revoke the agreement. A feature of both laws is the protection and high regard for the confidential nature to which customers transact with the bank. Atty. being the fruit of the poisonous tree should be objected to for its inadmissibility. III. she had the duty to improve the current status of the bank and to make sure that only essential contracts or agreements are entered into. Thus. II. (a) The court should sustain the objection of Daking. As conservator. Atty. The Bank Secrecy Law and the Foreign Currency Deposit Act was written precisely as a way to attract investors and depositors to do business with banks. These laws promote the high level of protection afforded to the banking community.

directors. As a general rule. In this case. Here. As such. The purpose is for stockholders to be able to share in the profits of the corporation where they invested their money in. the stockholders of Petronius can compel Petronius to declare dividends because the unrestricted retained earnings have exceeded 100% of the paid-in capital of P100 Million. Unless the company decided to expand business. Petronius can be compelled to declare dividends. Generally. The defense of Y Corp. Piercing the veil of corporate fiction is proper in cases where the corporate vehicle is used by the board of directors. among others. under the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. and members therein. No. when the unrestricted retained earnings of a corporation have exceeded 100% of its paid-up capital. there should be no reason not to declare dividends to the stockholders. X Corp employs the services of Y Corp as an incident to their pizza business. officers. V. X Corp committed an unfair labor practice of illegally dismissing the workers. the officers. However. Thus. piercing the veil of corporate fiction can be done and the separate juridical personality may be disregarded which would consider the members and the corporation itself as one. corporate officers. the stockholders can compel a corporation to declare dividends provided that such unrestricted retained earnings are to be used for expansion of the corporation. and as such. is a separate juridical entity is not appropriate in this case. Y Corp using X Corp as an adjunct of their pizza business should be held liable because they share the same set of corporate officers. Therefore. IV. and members therein become personally liable for the acts done in the corporate name. (a) Mr. the corporate officers and X Corp is liable to the illegally dismissed workers. Dineros committed the crime of insider trading. Thus. . Atty. VI. the corporation is not mandated to declare dividends to its stockholders. the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction can be used in this case. De Guia is correct in revoking the said contract. the complaining stockholders can compel Petronius to declare dividends. a corporation has a juridical personality separate and distinct from the directors. Yes. VII. that X Corp. However. or affiliate corporations as a means to perpetrate fraud or aid in the commission of a crime. or is subject to a provision of a loan agreement.

they may demand payment from the 5 young lawyers who issued the promissory notes. c) It must be payable on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time. VIII. the crime of insider trading is committed when a director. An exception to this rule is the Fair Use policy wherein the material or excerpts of the same is used for academic purposes and is not used for public consumption. Inc. Under the Securities and Regulations Code. AppsLex. officer. As lawyer for AppsLex. Dineros is liable for the crime of insider trading. (b) No. The buyer of the ten million shares for double the price should be able to recover the excess he paid for the shares under the quasi-contract of negotiorum gestio. I would advise them to make the proper negotiable instruments in the form of promissory notes to make the plan legal. it must conform to the following requirements: a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker. James Hurt is liable for infringement of copyright. a copyright is infringed when the material that is made by the author is reproduced without his consent. Mr. to make the plan to borrow money for AppsLex legal. herein the 25 former classmates and law professors can negotiate the promissory notes and when the due date arrives. Atty. James Hurt violated the copyright . the payees. despite warning from Prof. He made use of the information he gathered and unknown to the public to be able to sell his ten million shares for double the price immediately after he obtained such material and non-public information. IX. Once AppsLex conforms to the requirements to make a promissory note. employee or even an associate of the first three obtains material and non-public information and uses that information to be able to sell or manipulate the price of the securities he or she intends to sell. Dineros made. Thus. should issue the proper promissory notes conforming to the requisites under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Philex Mining may not recover the P10 Million profit that Mr. Yes. Here. b) It must be an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain in money. Mr. Under the Intellectual Property Code. Here. Dineros is presumed to be in possession of material and non-public information due to his position as a director of Philex Mining Corp. The Negotiable Instruments Law provides that for a promissory note to be negotiable. and d) It must be payable to order or to bearer. Charles Queensfield not to reproduce or disseminate his handout without his consent.

Hurt exceeded the allowable limits by making the handouts accessible to all thus making him liable to copyright infringement. James Hurt is liable for infringement of copyright and damages. it is a utility model which may be considered to be an improvement of an existing product. Yes. Thus. The Intellectual Property law provides that for a thing to be patentable. the gas-saving device cannot be patented. Atty. Thus. generic or descriptive terms may be used as part of the trademark when the use of such generic or descriptive term has been attached to the good or the service it seeks to describe. the term “Jurists” can eventually be used registered as a trademark of the bar review center but only if the same has been in continuous use for at least 5 years. The denial of the trademark application is proper. Atty. X. Thus. the registration for the trademark can be denied. The gas-saving device cannot be patented because it does not conform to all the requisites for it to become patentable. It is also important to note that “Jurists Bar Review Center” is a trade name which need not be registered in order to be subject to protection. It is not patentable. the following must concur: a) there must be an inventive step. The rule is that the first to register for a patent has priority in right over the said patent. However. due to the non-compliance with the requisites for an item to be patentable. It does not have an inventive step because a gas-saving device might have already been thought of and available in the market. under the doctrine of secondary meaning. (b) Francis is entitled to the patent. . c) it must be a technical solution to a problem and d) there must be industrial applicability. Even though the materials where used in an academic discussion. At the very least. b) it must be novel. If there is a question as to the true owner of the patent. It is not a novel idea because it cannot be said that there had been no idea for a gas-saving device as of yet. Under the Intellectual Property Code. the denial of the trademark application is justified. it should be disproved with evidence. when a generic or descriptive term is used as a trademark. (a) No. XI. of the said handouts by uploading the same to a open source website. Here.

Francis is entitled to the patent but Cezar can rebut such entitlement. b) he became holder of it before it was overdue. a holder in due course is a holder who taken the instrument under the following conditions: a) it is complete and regular on its face. XII. b) he became holder of it before it was overdue. a) Under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Here. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law. The right to the patent belongs to the inventor and his heirs. he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same. Charles cannot enforce the note against Bart because the former is not a holder in due course. (c) No. Charles can no longer enforce the instrument against Bart because the former became holder of it after it was overdue. and d) when it was negotiated to him. Also. Mario is the maker and is primarily liable on the instrument. and d) when it was negotiated to him. Thus. c) No. a holder in due course is a holder who taken the instrument under the following conditions: a) it is complete and regular on its face. Thus. Joab has no right over the patent. A personal defense of lack of consideration is present in this case due to the object of the contract being a fake ring. Thus. Mario warrants that he will pay the value of the instrument according to its tenor and admits to the existence of the payee and his then capacity to endorse. As maker of the instrument. Charles may be able to enforce the said note against Mario. Francis was able to register the patent earlier than Cezar who originally thought of the idea. as a holder not in due course. such fact of first registration gives Francis priority over the said patent. The law on Intellectual Property protects the one who conjured the idea of the patentable invention. Thus. This is not commissioned work because Joab did not commission either Francis or Cezar to invent such device. he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same. . Joab was merely to provider of the materials but the inventor is Francis and Cezar. Here. he is vulnerable personal and real defenses. However. c) he took it for good faith and for value. Cezar is not without remedy for he can present evidence to the contrary with the Bureau of Patents. c) he took it for good faith and for value. The law protects their right over the patent. Joab’s claim will not prevail over those of Francis and Cezar. b) Yes.

c) he took it for good faith and for value. c) he took it for good faith and for value. XIII. Mickey is liable to Bethany for P 200. As a holder in due course. he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same. 00 on the note against the authority vested upon her. 000. 00. Mickey is also liable to Cathy for P200. XIV. a holder in due course is a holder who taken the instrument under the following conditions: a) it is complete and regular on its face.000. A holder in due course is a holder who is a holder who taken the instrument under the following conditions: a) it is complete and regular on its face. he had no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating the same. Even despite the fact that Cathy knew of the breach of trust. Thus. she can enforce the whole amount from Mickey. 000. Charles can no longer enforce the instrument against Bart. and d) when it was negotiated to him. having complied with all the requisites stated above. But because Bethany is a holder in due course. a) Yes. When an instrument is complete in all its terms coupled with the act and intention of delivery of the same. she can enforce the note against Mickey regardless of the fact that Pilita wrote down P 200. the same is valid. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law. Thus. The rule is when a holder acquires title from a holder in due course. Cathy acquired the note from Bethany who is a holder in due course.00.00. b) he became holder of it before it was overdue.000. Here.00. 000. Thus. When it is delivered to a holder in due course the latter may enforce payment of the same against the maker or drawer. she is still a holder in due course and as such. b) he became holder of it before it was overdue. Bethany is a holder in due course. she can enforce the instrument against Mickey for the amount of P200. the holder acquires the rights of the holder in due course from whom she got her title from. a) Bethany may enforce the note against Mickey for the amount of P 200. Cindy can enforce payment of the check against Nilda. b) Yes. 00.000. Cathy may still enforce the note against Mickey for the amount of P200. and d) when it was negotiated to him. .

the party whose signature is forged and all prior parties to Bob Uy as well for they were not party to the forgery. Andy Lim cannot be held liable to Robin Sun on the note. the check loses its efficacy and becomes stale. The law on insurance provides that perils of the sea cannot be made to include man- made causes to the destruction of the ship. the signature of the payee is forged and as such the signature is inoperative. 2008 but it was paid to Cindy on August 8. My answer will not be the same. when a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be. b) No. The check can no longer serve its purpose. it was deposited on August 8. Cindy is a holder in due course for she has complied with all the requisites of being one. or give a discharge therefore or enforce payment thereon against any party thereto can be acquired through and under such signature unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority. the cause of the destruction of the MV Dona Priscilla is due to the leakage coming from the engine pipes and such leak seeping into the cargo compartment. Cindy can enforce payment of the check against Nilda because Cindy was not aware that there was any irregularity in the negotiation of the instrument. Thus. When the law talks of perils of the sea. Thus. XV. No. This is attributed to the extensive mileage that the shipped accumulated. the check was dated January 2. Otherwise. Jurisprudence provides that a check must be deposited or encashed within 6 months from the date of its issue or last negotiation. 2008. it is wholly inoperative and no right to retain the instrument. XVI. 2008 or 7 months from the issuance of the check. as a holder in due course. Robin Sun enforce payment thereon against Bob Uy. It means that it had already lost its efficacy because it was not deposited nor encashed within a reasonable time. No. Even if the check was subject of a stop payment order. Cindy cannot enforce the payment of the check against Nilda anymore. Here. Here. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law. The insurer may not be made to answer for the damage to the cargo and the ship. Robin Sun cannot hold Andy Lim liable on the note. Thus. only those that can be attributed to fortuitous events naturally occurring can be considered. Here. This is not .

or sea. CIP is a common carrier. In jurisprudence on Letters of Credit. the presumption of negligence arises. XVIII. T Shipping Co. it has been acknowledge that in such transactions. whenever goods being transported by a common carrier is lost or damaged. Here. As a rule. a peril of the sea. that would make them a common carrier whose services are open to the public. for compensation. Likha was able to prove that the goods were not able to reach their destination. a common carrier is one that holds itself out to the public to transport goods and people by land. Thus. it does not have anything to do with the loading of the shipment . the contract between the buyer and the issuing bank and the contract between the seller and the bank. a) Yes. Hence. Their business as a freight forwarder naturally involves the transportation of goods and people and as such. As a general rule. This is called the independence principle where the three contracts have not relation with each other. a presumption of lack of diligence of a good father of a family exists. CIP on the other hand did not present evidence to the contrary in order to rebut the presumption. AXLE Fabric’s contention is not tenable. The correspondent bank BA cannot be held liable by AXLE Fabric because as far as BA is concerned. Hence. The presumption is rebuttable by evidence to the contrary that the common carrier took the necessary precaution in ensuring the safety and security of the goods and exercised the required degree of diligence of common carriers. XVII. b) Yes. It is not required that the common carrier have vehicles of their own for the conveyance of goods and people but the important thing is that they hold themselves out to the public for the transport of goods and passengers. Thus. cannot collect from R Insurance Co. air. there exists three separate contracts—the contract of sale between the buyer and the seller. Thus. but rather a man-made cause that could have been avoided by proper maintenance of the ship. the presumption of negligence on the part of CIP stands. the court may hold CIP liable for damages by way of lost profit. CIP is a common carrier even with the lack of vehicles used for conveyance of goods and passengers. CIP is a common carrier. CIP is liable for damages by way of lost profit.

The insurer can no longer question even the breach of Sisa’s warranty to attend tegular medical check-ups. Dyes “R” Us for breach of contract of sale for not shipping the correct items. the insurer specifically asked the question about the nationality of the vessel which Bansa categorically lied about. Here. Misrepresentation. Bansa’s claim from the insurer will fail. Such act is misrepresentation of the facts and as such. after the lapse of the incontestability period of 2 years can no longer question the material information in the policy. Also. No. even suicide does not avoid an insurance policy. Bansa did not reveal that the vessel used is registered in Iran which would affect the risk it is exposed to. The said 2-year period begins to run from the time the policy was issued or when it was reinstated. b) Bansa cannot claim from the insurer. Bansa will not be able to claim from the insurer even though it is destroyed due to a storm. Such concealment is a breach of the insurance contract. Sposo. Here. Misrepresentation is when the insured provides information that does not truly represent the truth or the facts. AXLE cannot run after Bank of America. under the law on insurance is a ground for non-payment of the proceeds to the insured. Thus. XIX. more so that its route is a battle-torn area. XX. AXLE Fabric should go directly to the seller. . the cause of death is not material to a life insurance because under the law. Thus. Under the law on insurance. the insurer must pay the proceeds to Sisa’s beneficiary. which should be the role of Dyes “R” Us. The insurer’s refusal to pay the proceeds of the policy is not justified. the incontestability period has already set in because Sisa died 2 years from the issuance of the policy. The law on insurance provides that any material concealment of any fact that might affect the risk or the computation of the premium that must be paid of the proceeds of the insurance that must be paid avoids the insurance policy. the insurer is not liable to pay Bansa for the loss of the insured vessel. Thus. a) Bansa cannot claim from the insurer. an incontestability clause is one where the insurer. Thus. Here.